Russia Discussion

[Revan]

Hypocrisy is just a by product of the pursuit of power. States do what they need to in order to get ahead, consolidate their power, territory, and capabilities. Its the central mechanism of the international system. For all those barking about hypocrisy - this is how the system works, get over it.

Absolutely. EU/US wanted to go play in Putin's garden and of course he acted. South East Ukraine is vital for Russia and the today's Russia (who is much stronger than 10-15 years ago) won't just give it up. Russia will rule that part of the world one way or another and I doubt that anyone can do anything about it. The democratic vs non-democratic governments, what people wants etc are just justifications in the pursuit of superpowers getting even more power. In fact, Russia doesn't even care about those justifications while US makes some 'movies' in order to prepare their people that what they are doing is right (like Iraq invasion).

 

[yanuzay]

Hypocrisy is just a by product of the pursuit of power. States do what they need to in order to get ahead, consolidate their power, territory, and capabilities. Its the central mechanism of the international system. For all those barking about hypocrisy - this is how the system works, get over it.

Doed that make it alright?

There are other ways to enforce yourself, through a politics.

There is no excuse to invade another country, unless there is immenint danger on your country.

 

[Raoul]

You're right Danny, there are no exact comparisons - although since you brought up Iraq, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait would be the closest thing even though Kuwaitis weren't in any way pro-Iraqi.

 

[Raoul]

Doed that make it alright?

There are other ways to enforce yourself, through a politics.

There is no excuse to invade another country, unless there is immenint danger on your country.

This is how the system works. If you don't understand that powerful states control how business is done, then you're bound to endlessly chase your tail and get hung up on ancillary issues like hypocrisy.

 

[Revan]

Sorry but like I said, you can't compare the Russian "invasion" of Ukraine to the US invasion of Iraq.

So many differences like: There are no US citizens in Iraq. There is no treaty between Iraq and the US allowing them to have troops on Iraqi ground. The Russian forces aren't trying to topple a government and change the regime. Iraq was never part of the US in the past...etc.

Besides, at least wait for a bullet to be shot before comparing the Russian "invasion" to a conflict that left 100,000+ civilians dead.

I didn't said that what Russia is doing now is similar to US invading Iraq. They are both different cases. The similarity is that both US and Russia are invading other countries in their pursuit for further power. It had nothing to do with nukes in Iraq and it has nothing to do with 'protecting Russian-speaking people'. The main reason in Iraq was oil and the main reason here is gas.

 

[DFreshKing]

Hypocrisy is just a by product of the pursuit of power. States do what they need to in order to get ahead, consolidate their power, territory, and capabilities. Its the central mechanism of the international system. For all those barking about hypocrisy - this is how the system works, get over it.

Why are you whining about Russia then?

 

[Bross]

The difference between US invading Iraq for oil and Russia invading (if thats the word you want to use) Crimea is that in Ukraine there has been a sudden change of the status in the region. Russia has always had great access to the Crimean peninsula, for hundreds of years the region has been under heavy russian influence and in many ways has been in all but name Russian.

Now with the sudden introduction of an anti-Russian government Putin is obviously scared how the situation might develop regarding EU and possibly also NATO influence in Ukraine. If he had done nothing and Ukraine became even more western-aligned than they have been recently (joining NATO for instance), Russia might suddenly have faced the situation of NATO forces in Sevastopol, at which point it would be too late to safely take control of the region.

So Putin strikes first, showing the world that Russia has great interests on the Crimean peninsula that he will not allow others to threaten. By striking first he has eliminated the threat of the Black Sea Naval bases of Ukraine becoming a NATO interest area. Its a common sense decision to assert continued control over an important strategical area in the region. The Russian ethnicity in the region is also a factor, but I think its used more of an excuse to make a move that is mainly strategical in nature. The argument that they had to protect ethnic Russian from violence and murder is quite clearly exaggerated.

 

[Bross]

Why are you whining about Russia then?

Hes American, its what they do.

 

[yanuzay]

This is how the system works. If you don't understand that powerful states control how business is done, then you're bound to endlessly chase your tail and get hung up on ancillary issues like hypocrisy.

Russia are taking over to try and protect their interests i.e their navel base. That has nothing to do with business, ironically, they will have less business because other countries in the G8 will hold sanctions and hold their assets etc.

America has set a precedent to invade countries for stupid reasons that are given to the world and have caused more mess than goodness overall. I know powerful states go into war for personal benefits such as oil or lobbying from weapons manufacturers. But, that sets a precedent that countries invade other countries because they are a danger to them (when their is no strong evidence given), but the real reason is for financial reasons. This is not right. I won't get over it like you said. That is why people should join campaigns that try to remove lobbying groups as they do not just impact the US, but the whole world too.

 

[Danny1982]

You're right Danny, there are no exact comparisons - although since you brought up Iraq, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait would be the closest thing even though Kuwaitis weren't in any way pro-Iraqi.

I agree. Saddam was a nutter, and the UN should have overthrown his regime in 1991. And that actually tells you all about nations' hypocrisy. When they had a legitimate right to overthrow him, they didn't (probably because they wanted to keep him as a card to fight Iran again when necessary), and when they had no legitimate right to overthrow him, they did (for God knows what reason, but I thought their thought process was that he was too weak now to face Iran, and he was in danger himself of being overthrown by people close to Iran).

 

[MDFC Manager]

The difference between US invading Iraq for oil and Russia invading (if thats the word you want to use) Crimea is that in Ukraine there has been a sudden change of the status in the region. Russia has always had great access to the Crimean peninsula, for hundreds of years the region has been under heavy russian influence and in many ways has been in all but name Russian.

Now with the sudden introduction of an anti-Russian government Putin is obviously scared how the situation might develop regarding EU and possibly also NATO influence in Ukraine. If he had done nothing and Ukraine became even more western-aligned than they have been recently (joining NATO for instance), Russia might suddenly have faced the situation of NATO forces in Sevastopol, at which point it would be too late to safely take control of the region.

So Putin strikes first, showing the world that Russia has great interests on the Crimean peninsula that he will not allow others to threaten. By striking first he has eliminated the threat of the Black Sea Naval bases of Ukraine becoming a NATO interest area. Its a common sense decision to assert continued control over an important strategical area in the region. The Russian ethnicity in the region is also a factor, but I think its used more of an excuse to make a move that is mainly strategical in nature. The argument that they had to protect ethnic Russian from violence and murder is quite clearly exaggerated.

It's pretty much this imo too. Sevastopol seems like an absolutely critical Russian interest. Also, in this day and age no one fights a war based purely on ethnical reasons. Believing that is just naivety.

 

[Revan]

The difference between US invading Iraq for oil and Russia invading (if thats the word you want to use) Crimea is that in Ukraine there has been a sudden change of the status in the region. Russia has always had great access to the Crimean peninsula, for hundreds of years the region has been under heavy russian influence and in many ways has been in all but name Russian.

Now with the sudden introduction of an anti-Russian government Putin is obviously scared how the situation might develop regarding EU and possibly also NATO influence in Ukraine. If he had done nothing and Ukraine became even more western-aligned than they have been recently (joining NATO for instance), Russia might suddenly have faced the situation of NATO forces in Sevastopol, at which point it would be too late to safely take control of the region.

So Putin strikes first, showing the world that Russia has great interests on the Crimean peninsula that he will not allow others to threaten. By striking first he has eliminated the threat of the Black Sea Naval bases of Ukraine becoming a NATO interest area. Its a common sense decision to assert continued control over an important strategical area in the region. The Russian ethnicity in the region is also a factor, but I think its used more of an excuse to make a move that is mainly strategical in nature. The argument that they had to protect ethnic Russian from violence and murder is quite clearly exaggerated.

Agree with this. I think that chances are very high that Russia would have invaded Crimea even if they weren't ethnic Russians. NATO/EU factor plays a part too though I think that the biggest motivation for Putin was the gas roads (likely this isn't the correct name) that are in Crimea and in SE Ukraine which makes that region very important for Russian economy. An another point is that Russia doesn't want Western states to interfere in its region of influence. In fact, they did they invaded Georgia mainly because they wanted to show that they won't ever allow Georgia to become a part of EU/NATO with the justification that they care about Ossetians/Abkhazian people. Since when Russian governments become so sensible to care about average people?

 

[Revan]

Russia are taking over to try and protect their interests i.e their navel base. That has nothing to do with business, ironically, they will have less business because other countries in the G8 will hold sanctions and hold their assets etc.

America has set a precedent to invade countries for stupid reasons that are given to the world and have caused more mess than goodness overall. I know powerful states go into war for personal benefits such as oil or lobbying from weapons manufacturers. But, that sets a precedent that countries invade other countries because they are a danger to them (when their is no strong evidence given), but the real reason is for financial reasons. This is not right. I won't get over it like you said. That is why people should join campaigns that try to remove lobbying groups as they do not just impact the US, but the whole world too.

I don't know why are you insisting that US started this precident mate. It started long before Europeans invaded America.

It's pretty much this imo too. Sevastopol seems like an absolutely critical Russian interest. Also, in this day and age no one fights a war based purely on ethnical reasons. Believing that is just naivety.

Hmm, not exactly true. The majority of wars of course don't happen for ethnical reasons, but there were a few wars in the last 20 years for exactly that ( the four wars in ex-Yugoslavia being the best example). That was only 15-20 years ago, so I think it classifies into the 'in this day and age'. The current situation in Ukraine has nothing to do with nationality though, IMO.

 

[yanuzay]

I don't know why are you insisting that US started this precident mate. It started long before Europeans invaded America.



Hmm, not exactly true. The majority of wars of course don't happen for ethnical reasons, but there were a few wars in the last 20 years for exactly that ( the four wars in ex-Yugoslavia being the best example). That was only 15-20 years ago, so I think it classifies into the 'in this day and age'. The current situation in Ukraine has nothing to do with nationality though, IMO.

I thought we signed a treaty at the end of ww2, no?

 

[MoskvaRed]

Agree with this. I think that chances are very high that Russia would have invaded Crimea even if they weren't ethnic Russians. NATO/EU factor plays a part too though I think that the biggest motivation for Putin was the gas roads (likely this isn't the correct name) that are in Crimea and in SE Ukraine which makes that region very important for Russian economy. An another point is that Russia doesn't want Western states to interfere in its region of influence. In fact, they did they invaded Georgia mainly because they wanted to show that they won't ever allow Georgia to become a part of EU/NATO with the justification that they care about Ossetians/Abkhazian people. Since when Russian governments become so sensible to care about average people?

I'm not aware there are gas pipelines in Crimea. They do go through mainland Ukraine, although I don't really see the risk there to Russia - Ukraine can't disrupt the supply without alienating most of Europe. Those games have been going on for years in any case with different Ukrainian governments, with Russia threatening to build South Stream (under the Black Sea) to by-pass Ukraine.

I suspect there are a whole host of motivations at play, with the two main ones being to protect the naval base (and Russia's control of the Black Sea) and to shore up Putin's falling popularity - the Russian economy is moribund so acting the tough guy appeals to populist sentiment.

I think they will stop at Crimea. Certainly no-one here cares about Western Ukraine - as for the East, I don't think they will annex it, and the oligarchs who control the East have no desire to give up their fiefdoms to be swallowed up by Russia.

 

[yanuzay]

I agree. Saddam was a nutter, and the UN should have overthrown his regime in 1991. And that actually tells you all about nations' hypocrisy. When they had a legitimate right to overthrow him, they didn't (probably because they wanted to keep him as a card to fight Iran again when necessary), and when they had no legitimate right to overthrow him, they did (for God knows what reason, but I thought their thought process was that he was too weak now to face Iran, and he was in danger himself of being overthrown by people close to Iran).

You do know that Saddam also built Iraq and gave them schools, hospitals, drinking water, built up the economy etc. I know he done bad things, but he also did good.

But you lot are so blind, what has Americas done? They started a war that carried on after they went. Iraq had no nukes, there was no evidence but they invaded Iraq anyway. Now there is civil war whereby different sects in Iraq are fighting each other. There is less food, drinking water, schools, hospitals etc now. Also, their government is corrupt.

Now, tell me it was right to invade Iraq.

 

[Revan]

I thought we signed a treaty at the end of ww2, no?

Did US started the first war after the WW2? If I am not mistaken the first War ater WW2 was the Vietnam war (not to be mistaken with the US-North Vietnam war) which was started by UK, Japan and France. It isn't relevant though, there were plenty of wars in that time when US wasn't one of the actors. And plenty of others where they were one of the biggest actors.

 

[JustAFan]

I don't know why are you insisting that US started this precident mate. It started long before Europeans invaded America.



.

A little study of history would prove it was not a US invention, but not saying the US has not used false reasons for invading a country of course.

 

[Revan]

I'm not aware there are gas pipelines in Crimea. They do go through mainland Ukraine, although I don't really see the risk there to Russia - Ukraine can't disrupt the supply without alienating most of Europe. Those games have been going on for years in any case with different Ukrainian governments, with Russia threatening to build South Stream (under the Black Sea) to by-pass Ukraine.

I suspect there are a whole host of motivations at play, with the two main ones being to protect the naval base (and Russia's control of the Black Sea) and to shore up Putin's falling popularity - the Russian economy is moribund so acting the tough guy appeals to populist sentiment.

I think they will stop at Crimea. Certainly no-one here cares about Western Ukraine - as for the East, I don't think they will annex it, and the oligarchs who control the East have no desire to give up their fiefdoms to be swallowed up by Russia.

I thought that there were a few gas pipelines there (I may be mistaken). Anyway, it looks that Crimea is vital for Russia so they won't allow US/EU to dominate that part (which could have happened with Ukraine as a member of EU and NATO). I guess that the same thing would have happened if Russia would have swaped the roles with EU/US. The world is divided into some economical/political spheres that are usually dominated by a state. And that state will do everything in order to continue their control in that region.

 

[Revan]

You do know that Saddam also built Iraq and gave them schools, hospitals, drinking water, built up the economy etc. I know he done bad things, but he also did good.

But you lot are so blind, what has Americas done? They started a war that carried on after they went. Iraq had no nukes, there was no evidence but they invaded Iraq anyway. Now there is civil war whereby different sects in Iraq are fighting each other. There is less food, drinking water, schools, hospitals etc now. Also, their government is corrupt.

Now, tell me it was right to invade Iraq.

Saddam was an arsehole that deserved everything he got. All people do at times some good things too, Hitler and Stalin did some good things to their people, but that doesn't make them less evil.

 

[JustAFan]

Did US started the first war after the WW2? If I am not mistaken the first War ater WW2 was the Vietnam war (not to be mistaken with the US-North Vietnam war) which was started by UK, Japan and France. It isn't relevant though, there were plenty of wars in that time when US wasn't one of the actors. And plenty of others where they were one of the biggest actors.

Before Vietnam you had several others. The most famous being The Korean War and of course the first Arab-Israeli War. Also had the first Kashmir War. The French Indochina War also is often stated as starting in 1946. I think the Greeks had a Civil War also.

 

[MoskvaRed]

Did US started the first war after the WW2? If I am not mistaken the first War ater WW2 was the Vietnam war (not to be mistaken with the US-North Vietnam war) which was started by UK, Japan and France. It isn't relevant though, there were plenty of wars in that time when US wasn't one of the actors. And plenty of others where they were one of the biggest actors.

There were loads of wars in the decolonisation period, including the war in Vietnam you mention. Korea was probably the first big, non-colonial war?

 

[yanuzay]

Saddam was an arsehole that deserved everything he got. All people do at times some good things too, Hitler and Stalin did some good things to their people, but that doesn't make them less evil.

Ok. Say he was the most disgusting human being that ever lived.

You still have not acknowledged the fact America made Iraq worse than before the war! They said it would make Iraq a democratic place and they had nukes. Both were not true. They just wanted the oil.

I would love for you to defend that.

 

[Danny1982]

You do know that Saddam also built Iraq and gave them schools, hospitals, drinking water, built up the economy etc. I know he done bad things, but he also did good.

But you lot are so blind, what has Americas done? They started a war that carried on after they went. Iraq had no nukes, there was no evidence but they invaded Iraq anyway. Now there is civil war whereby different sects in Iraq are fighting each other. There is less food, drinking water, schools, hospitals etc now. Also, their government is corrupt.

Now, tell me it was right to invade Iraq.

I don't think you fully understand my position in this issue. I'm against the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, but Saddam didn't build Iraq, he destroyed it. Part of why I blame the US actually for the Iraq disaster is that they helped him get to power to protect their interests, and then helped him stay in power even though they knew what the Iraqi people were going through, and what they were going to suffer.

I don't want to derail the thread though, so we'll probably argue about this another time, in another thread.

 

[Revan]

There were loads of wars in the decolonisation period, including the war in Vietnam you mention. Korea was probably the first big, non-colonial war?

I guess that the first big war was Israel versus Egypt, Palestine, Jordan and Syria while the first big non colonial war was the Korea war.

Before Vietnam you had several others. The most famous being The Korean War and of course the first Arab-Israeli War. Also had the first Kashmir War. The French Indochina War also is often stated as starting in 1946. I think the Greeks had a Civil War also.

The Vietnam war I mentioned was in 1945 (immediately after the end of WW2). The US war in Vietnam was more than 10 years later. And yep, all those wars you mentioned were before the US-N.Vietnam war.

Ok. Say he was the most disgusting human being that ever lived.

You still have not acknowledged the fact America made Iraq worse than before the war! They said it would make Iraq a democratic place and they had nukes. Both were not true. They just wanted the oil.

I would love for you to defend that.

I won't even try. I said before that US invaded Iraq for oil, not for nukes. Sadam losing his power and getting executed isn't a bad thing though. How things went after that is a bad thing on the other side.

I don't think that Iraq becoming a better place to live was one of the US intentions there.

 

[MoskvaRed]

Ok. Say he was the most disgusting human being that ever lived.

You still have not acknowledged the fact America made Iraq worse than before the war! They said it would make Iraq a democratic place and they had nukes. Both were not true. They just wanted the oil.

I would love for you to defend that.

What is the relevance of discussing Saddam in this context? Because it leads nowhere - we can all list countries that Russia has invaded as well...

 

[Danny1982]

By the way, whatever happened to that 5:00 AM ultimatum? Haven't heard of public surrender or big military confrontations.

 

[Sarni]

By the way, whatever happened to that 5:00 AM ultimatum? Haven't heard of public surrender or big military confrontations.

It was apparently load of nonsense as cited by someone high up in Russian military.

 

[Bross]

Saddam was an arsehole that deserved everything he got. All people do at times some good things too, Hitler and Stalin did some good things to their people, but that doesn't make them less evil.

So because one man did evil deeds you can remove him without thinking about the consequences for millions of people? Removing Saddam probably has lead to worse living conditions for far more people than those who suffered under his dictatorship. No doubt Saddam personally "deserved" what he got but sometimes you have to be more pragmatic and from a hedonistic point of view for the population of Iraq in its entirety removing Saddam was probably a bad decision. Its hard for people to understand this, as time and time again people argue for the removal of dictators without properly considering the consequences for the people. People are too quick to cry justice for the relatively few people suffering and unable to assess the future suffering of other groups. What good has it done for the general living standards in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria to remove the respective dictators? Probably a negative net effect for the people in those countries.

Not the thread anyway but I felt like writing this. Its something that annoys me greatly, the shortsightedness of anti-dictator interventions with no proper plan for long-term development and stability.

 

[yanuzay]

What is the relevance of discussing Saddam in this context? Because it leads nowhere - we can all list countries that Russia has invaded as well...

It has nothing to do with Saddan, it is the principle that you can't invade countries for petty reasons that are conveyed to the public, even if you have a different agenda. We as the people should not just accept it. Russia has now done the same.

 

[JustAFan]

What is the relevance of discussing Saddam in this context? Because it leads nowhere - we can all list countries that Russia has invaded as well...

Excellent point. AT the end of the day the question is whether or not Russia has a legit reason to take control of Crimea and the historic actions of other nations in invading other countries, which in most cases most of us agree those invasions were wrong, has little to do with that.

Whether country A is showing hypocrisy has little or nothing to do with whether or not the actions of country B are legitimate.

All this really just has to do with trying to "win" an internet arguement, which can't really be done.

 

[Revan]

'I don't think that Iraq becoming a better place to live was one of the US intentions there.' This was from one of my posts in that matter.

So because one man did evil deeds you can remove him without thinking about the consequences for millions of people? Removing Saddam probably has lead to worse living conditions for far more people than those who suffered under his dictatorship. No doubt Saddam personally "deserved" what he got but sometimes you have to be more pragmatic and from a hedonistic point of view for the population of Iraq in its entirety removing Saddam was probably a bad decision. Its hard for people to understand this, as time and time again people argue for the removal of dictators without properly considering the consequences for the people. People are too quick to cry justice for the relatively few people suffering and unable to assess the future suffering of other groups. What good has it done for the general living standards in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria to remove the respective dictators? Probably a negative net effect for the people in those countries.

Not the thread anyway but I felt like writing this. Its something that annoys me greatly, the shortsightedness of anti-dictator interventions with no proper plan for long-term development and stability.

I never said that US invading Iraq was the right thing to do (in fact I explained that it was bad). My reply was to Yanuzay who mentioned the good things that Sadam did. He was a scum who deserved anything he got. Iraq people suffering because US and Sadam played the game of thrones on the other hand... that is completely different and I agree with you. Anyway, let's not derail the thread anymore.

 

[MoskvaRed]

It was apparently load of nonsense as cited by someone high up in Russian military.

Sarni, besides the invasion paranoia you mentioned (and, I agree, there is zero risk in that regard), what is the general feeling in Poland? Is there any talk of potentially reintegrating the old Eastern part of Poland if Ukraine were to break up? I don't think Ukraine will split in two (ignoring Crimea) but, if it were to happen, it seems to me that Western Ukraine, agricultural and without any natural resources, could only survive on its own as some formal or informal adjunct to Poland and the wider EU beyond.

 

[Sarni]

Sarni, besides the invasion paranoia you mentioned (and, I agree, there is zero risk in that regard), what is the general feeling in Poland? Is there any talk of potentially reintegrating the old Eastern part of Poland if Ukraine were to break up? I don't think Ukraine will split in two (ignoring Crimea) but, if it were to happen, it seems to me that Western Ukraine, agricultural and without any natural resources, could only survive on its own as some formal or informal adjunct to Poland and the wider EU beyond.

I don't think it's going to come to that. If Ukraine were to break they'd just create a new autonomy on the western side of the country and the eastern side would belong to Russia. We used to have Lviv and a large chunk of what currently belongs to the Ukraine but it was decades ago and we have no influence in that region anymore, I don't see how we'd ever come into possession of these territories again - it wouldn't be by force and they won't just hand it over to us like that.

We'd be major business partners if that (split) were to happen though. The two countries are already pretty close together and the influx of Ukrainian people into Poland has been happening for decades (a lot of my friends from university times were from Ukraine), if Ukraine found themselves in this turmoil for much longer the migration would be even more significant I believe.

Lithuania are far more Polish than Ukraine. When I went to Vilnius two years ago most people there spoke good Polish and considered themselves half-Poles - we won't ever get that territories back either but that further cements my point of view in regards to Ukraine, we aren't getting those territories back either because we no longer have anything to do with them.

 

[MoskvaRed]

I don't think it's going to come to that. If Ukraine were to break they'd just create a new autonomy on the western side of the country and the eastern side would belong to Russia. We used to have Lviv and a large chunk of what currently belongs to the Ukraine but it was decades ago and we have no influence in that region anymore, I don't see how we'd ever come into possession of these territories again - it wouldn't be by force and they won't just hand it over to us like that.

We'd be major business partners if that (split) were to happen though. The two countries are already pretty close together and the influx of Ukrainian people into Poland has been happening for decades (a lot of my friends from university times were from Ukraine), if Ukraine found themselves in this turmoil for much longer the migration would be even more significant I believe.

Lithuania are far more Polish than Ukraine. When I went to Vilnius two years ago most people there spoke good Polish and considered themselves half-Poles - we won't ever get that territories back either but that further cements my point of view in regards to Ukraine, we aren't getting those territories back either because we no longer have anything to do with them.

Cheers - the economic sphere of influence approach makes sense. By the way, I got totally the opposite impression from visiting Lvov and Vilnius. The former was full of Poles (albeit tourists) and local guides were fully acknowledging the Polish heritage. In Vilnius, the Polish past seemed less recognised. The misleading impressions you can get as a tourist I suppose...Both beautiful cities in any event.

 

[Sarni]

Cheers - the economic sphere of influence approach makes sense. By the way, I got totally the opposite impression from visiting Lvov and Vilnius. The former was full of Poles (albeit tourists) and local guides were fully acknowledging the Polish heritage. In Vilnius, the Polish past seemed less recognised. The misleading impressions you can get as a tourist I suppose...Both beautiful cities in any event.

Never been to Lviv honestly but from what I've heard Polish influences there are slight - of course they still know that they used to belong here and a lot of Ukrainians think of Poland very fondly but it's not a city heavily influenced by Poles anymore from what I have gathered.

 

[Mihajlovic]

In 2004 Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the nationalist Svoboda party and one of the three signatories of last month’s interim peace deal with Yanukovych (along with Vitali Klichko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk), alleged that a “Jewish-Muscovite Mafia” is ruling Ukraine. By replacing the term “Jew-Bolshevik” with “Jew-Muscovite,” Tyahnybok continued the tradition of blaming Jews for supposed Russian aggression. That Jews were attacked during the protests against Yanukovych seems to indicate that others think like him...

http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014/03/03/fears-anti-semitism-spread-ukraine

Strange how the Western supporters of the new government seem to be avoiding to address this problem.

 

[MoskvaRed]

Strange how the Western supporters of the new government seem to be avoiding to address this problem.

You hear similar stuff in Russia everyday given the high number of oligarchs that are or were Jewish (Abramovich, Friedman, Vekselberg, Berezovsky etc). It's all bullsh*t (Jews were frozen out of top positions in the Soviet Union and therefore made their way in business) and is also outdated (the kingpin thieves these days are all good Slavs, starting with VVP). In any case, it's one statement that is 10 years old.

 

[Drifter]

Kerry speaking now,Blah blah blah ,a better way,blah blah blah.

 

[Mihajlovic]

You hear similar stuff in Russia everyday given the high number of oligarchs that are or were Jewish (Abramovich, Friedman, Vekselberg, Berezovsky etc). It's all bullsh*t (Jews were frozen out of top positions in the Soviet Union and therefore made their way in business) and is also outdated (the kingpin thieves these days are all good Slavs, starting with VVP). In any case, it's one statement that is 10 years old.

I was just browsing through the German media. Doesn't look like bullshit.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...len-fehler-der-kiewer-regierung-a-956680.html
http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/ukrai...rungsseite.886.de.html?dram:article_id=277797
http://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/article/view/id/18169
http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/...isemitisch-sind-die-Maidan-Demonstranten.html
http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2013-12/ukraine-protest-swoboda-maidan

Noch im Sommer trafen sich Swoboda-Mitglieder in Deutschland mit der NPD. Sie tauschen sich auch mit dem Front National aus Frankreich aus. (Swoboda-members meeting with the NPD)